258/02 : Miss A / Cameroon
Summary of Facts
st
1. On 21 August 2002, the Secretariat of the African Commission received from Miss A, a
Cameroonian citizen, a communication relative to the provisions of Article 55 of the African Charter
(the African Charter). Miss A submitted the communication for and on behalf of her father and co.
1
2. The communication was submitted against the Republic of Cameroon (a State Party to the
African Charter) and Miss A alleged in the communication that her father and two colleagues, former
workers of the Cameroon P & T were arrested and detained in 1998 by the police, as conspirators of
the Minister of P & T, who was also arrested and detained for alleged corruption.
3. The Complainant further alleged that since 1998, when her father and two of his colleagues have
been in detention, they have never been formally charged, they have never appeared in court and
never had access to a lawyer. The Complainant added that the State did not appear to have any
intention to try them in the foreseeable future, whereas the delicate health of her father required
constant medical attention.
Complaint
4. Miss A contends that the above-described facts constitute a violation by Cameroon of Articles
2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 and26 of the African Charter, and requests the African Commission to:
1. Ask Cameroon take appropriate measures in order to avoid irreparable damage to the health
and well being of the said detainees;
2. Pronounce the Government of Cameroon in violation of the African Charter and other
international human rights treaties;
3. Request Cameroon to bring the accused persons to trial immediately or order their release;
4. Request the erring State to compensate her father and his co-detainees for the period they
have been in detention.
Procedure
rd
5. By letter ACHPR/COMM/258/2002 of 23 August 2002, the Secretariat of the African Commission
acknowledged receipt of the communication and informed the sender that it would be tabled for
nd
consideration prima facie at its 32 Ordinary Session.
nd
th
rd
6. During its 32 Session, held from the 17 to 23 October 2002 in Banjul, The Gambia, the
[African] Commission considered the communication and decided to be seized of it.
nd
7. On 22 October 2002, the Chairman of the [African] Commission sent a letter requesting the
urgent intervention of the President of the Republic of Cameroon, drawing his attention to the situation
of the two detainees and in particular on their state of health and urged the Head of State to ensure
that appropriate medical care is provided for the detainees. The Chairman of the [African] Commission
also requested in his letter that the detainees be charged and given a fair trial or freed in case no
charge is made against them.
th
8. On 28 October 2002, the Secretariat of the [African] Commission sent a Note Verbale to
Cameroon informing it of the communication against it and the decision of seizure that the [African]
Commission had taken on it. Cameroon was further requested to provide the [African] Commission
with its arguments on the admissibility of the case, which the [African] Commission intends to consider
rd
th
th
at its 33 Session (5 to 19 May 2003, Niamey, Niger).
9. On the same date, the Secretariat of the [African] Commission sent a letter to the Complainant
informing her of the decision of seizure that the [African] Commission had taken on her case as well as
of the letter for urgent intervention that the Chairman of the [African] Commission had sent to the
President of the Republic of Cameroon at her request. The Complainant was also requested to furnish
the [African] Commission with possible arguments on the admissibility of the case, which the [African]
rd
Commission intended to consider at its 33 Session.
10. Having received no reply from the Respondent State, the Secretariat of the [African] Commission
th
sent it a reminder on 10 February 2003 drawing its attention to the fact that its written submissions on
the case should reach the [African] Commission as early as possible to allow the [African] Commission
take a decision on admissibility of the case. The Secretariat is yet to receive a reaction from the
Respondent State.
th
11. On 20 October 2002, the Complainant sent a letter to the [African] Commission requesting it to
defer consideration of the communication to allow her to acquire more information on the case from
the victims’ lawyers.
nd
12. On 2 October 2002, the Secretariat of the [African] Commission acknowledged receipt of the
Complainant’s request for deferment, and informed her that in accordance with her request
th
consideration of the communication would be deferred until the 35 Ordinary Session of the [African
Commission].
th
13. At its 34 Ordinary Session held in November 2003 in Banjul, The Gambia, the African
Commission formally decided to defer its decision on the admissibility of the complaint, in accordance
with the request of the Complainant.
14. By Note Verbale ACHPR/COMM 2258/2002 [of] 15/11/2003, the Secretariat of the African
th
Commission handed to the delegation of Cameroon participating at the 34 Session a copy of the said
complaint. The Note Verbale further requested Cameroon to convey its comments with regard to the
admissibility of the matter within three months and in any case before end February 2004, to enable
th
the [African] Commission to make a well informed ruling on the communication at its 35 Ordinary
Session.
15. On the 17/02/2004, the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Cameroon sent a letter to the African
Commission in which the Respondent State intimated that Mr Ndeh Ningo had been acquitted and
freed in November 2003, “for lack of criminal charges” whilst Mr Takang Philip had been freed in
March 2003 “for non-proven facts”.
16. Extracts of the judgement letter indicated the acquittal and liberation of the two individuals as well
as the respective arrest warrants which had been attached to the documents mentioned earlier.
17. The Respondent State therefore requested the [African] Commission to declare the
communication inadmissible “in view of the presentation of the above mentioned documents, which
sufficiently prove that the two cases had been submitted to the legal authorities of Cameroon and had
been dealt with”.
18. On the 01/03/2004 the Secretariat of the African Commission, through its Note Verbale
ACHPR/COMM 258/02 acknowledged receipt of the Note Verbale from the Respondent State.
19. By letter ACHPR/COMM 258/02/RK of the 01/03/2003, the Secretariat of the African Commission
had conveyed the Note Verbale to the Complainant requesting her reaction on the contents of the
letter.
20. On the 14/04/2004, the Complainant wrote to the Secretariat of the African Commission to
confirm the liberation of Mr Ndeh Ningo who had been “judged not guilty and freed on the 23/11/2003
after having spent 4 years in detention”.
21. The Complainant indicated in her letter that Mr Ndeh Ningo would advise the [African]
Commission on whether or not he would pursue the matter at the level of the [African] Commission.
The Complainant further mentioned the possibility of holding negotiations with the Respondent State
to obtain compensation for Mr Ndeh Ningo. For this reason the Complainant requested the African
th
Commission to kindly defer its decision on the admissibility of the communication until its 36 Ordinary
Session and not to declare it inadmissible as per the request of the Respondent State.
th
st
th
22. During its 35 Ordinary Session held from 21 May to 4 June 2004 in Banjul, The Gambia, the
[African] Commission considered the communication and declared it inadmissible.
Law
Admissibility
23. Article 56 of the African Charter provides inter alia that communications shall be considered by
the [African] Commission after exhausting local remedies, unless this procedure is unduly prolonged.
24. In the case under consideration, the African Commission notes that the alleged victims were tried
and freed in March and November 2003 respectively. This fact was admitted both by the Complainant
and Respondent State.
25. The African Commission took note of the fact that the case was brought to the African
Commission at the time that the matter was still before the courts. Furthermore, the fact that the case
was tried properly before a court of law shows the availability of local remedies.
26. The African Commission further took note of the fact that the Complainant intends to meet with
the Respondent State and start negotiations with a view to claim compensation for and on behalf of
the alleged victims.
Holding
For this reason, and in accordance with Article 56.5 of the African Charter, the African
Commission, Declares this communication inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies.
Done at the 35
th
st
th
Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia from 21 May to 4 June [2004].
Footnotes
1. Cameroon ratified the African Charter on 20 June 1989.